Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1887-04-21
Card.

To The Editor Of the Register.
SIR:-In this mornings issue of the
REGISTER you give to the public sketch
OF a trial before Ralph Arkle, in which one
Charles Neuman was plaintiff and myself
defendant. l am personally responsible
for the statements because they are strict
" true), that l now desire, through your
courtesy, to lay before my friends and the
public about the matter:
On the Sth of March, 1887, Charles Neu-
man, man who, / suppose, at no time
during the last six or eight years, has
lived outside of the binding conditions of q
peace bond, came into my office and swOre
out four warrants in one batch against the
two Paur brothers-twO peace warrants
and two for using prOfane language. On
the same day one of the Paar tfothers,
George, swOre out warrant before me,
charging said Neuman with q similar
offence. The cases were tried on the night
of that day. The Paur brothers were re-
uuired to enter into q recoguizance to keep
the peace, and in order; if possible, to
avert future trouble between the parties, l
also placed Neuman under bond to keep
the peace, which it was my duty to do.
The Paur brothers paid the assessments
against them, but Neuman acted differ
emily. After allowing some ten
days to Neuman to find q sure
ty, issued a commitment for him.
On the 18th day of March Neuman secured
a bondsman, after which he demanded an
itcmized bill of costs, for the purpose, il
possible, to bring suit against me. Imade
out the bills, and charged the fee of twen-
ty-fve cents each, as charged by all justices
as far as know. As to the fees charged |
erred in charging twenty-five cents too
much in one fee, through mistake, and at
the same time tailed to charge Neuman
with eighty-fve cents due me under the
law, which, of course, have lost. This,
too, was q mistake against me. This is all
there is in the charge of overchargiUg fees.
There are no two justices in the county
who agree as TO fee bills. The statute is
vague and indefinite, and therefore justices
have to do much without definite law, and
have to exercise their own discretion. On
the 18th of March, 1887, the same, day, as
you will see by referring above, the bond
was given, Neuman entered suit against
me before Ralph Arkle, claiming only
81. so damages. This suit was dismissed
without prejudice, the plaintiff failing to
appear. On the first day Of April, 1887,
another suit was brought by Newman,
claiming $25. This suit was tried yester-
day 10y jury, and verdict reached as re-
quired by law, although depending on two
contingencies. The jury said owed either
$l.75 or $l.2j, they didn't know which.
OF course, the verdict is worthless under
the law, no sum being fixed by the jury.
This suit was conceived, brought ana
prosecuted in malice. The Court has had
no kind feeling for me since dismissed a
suit brought by him against Constable
Stamp for the possession of the office now
occupied by Squire Peterman. On every
effort made by my attorney to state the
case before the jury he ruled him out of
order and sustained the opposing counsel.
The jury notified the Court that they
could not and would not agree, yet the
Court locked up the jury and went to his
supper and was gone about one hour. The
jury stood, ~ am informed, three for me
and three for plaintiff, A compromise
verdict was reached at last
Respectfully,
WILLIAM III. DAVIS,
Justice
Wheeling, Apra 20, 1887.